Warren is doing nothing more than copying the election style of Obama 2008, and while it is a very successful, grassroots style of campaigning, it is far from being a juggernaut because Warren, like Obama, will not use it to mobilize her base for a working class agenda.

Why won’t she do this? Because she does not have a working class agenda.

Warren believes in Keynesian, regulated capitalism. To believe in any form of capitalism is to believe in the benevolence and ethics of the bourgeoisie, which is to be inherently anti working class. Warren likes the idea of the American working class, but she fails to understand the need for socialized, radical platforms, and therefore does not understand them beyond her own conceptions of American acceptationalism.

It is true that Warren has doubled down her support for some working class programs, such as Medicare for All at the recent debates, however to quote Game of Thrones, “Words are wind.” Her hesitancy to fully, explicitly embrace Medicare for all until recently demonstrates a hesitancy towards the platform, and anyone can say they support a policy and then retract support later (as Obama did!). Compare this to Bernie who has not only been vocal about working class programs such as medicare for all, but he has also been consistent about voting for these working class platforms.

Warren is also a failure on the international front as well. She has voiced support for Israel and has voted for every single increase in military spending under the Trump administration.

Another misgiving to have about Warren is her refusal to denounce the Third Way Democrats. The Third Way think tank is a collection ofinvestment bankers who are intentionally trying to sabotage the growing left-wing tendency of the democratic party. Their twitter account, Third Way Tweet, has begun praising Warren as sensible and smearing Bernie as a “loser.” (My eyes just rolled so hard they popped out of my skull btw). Third Way might want to actually read Warren’s platform, because there is nothing, literally nothing she has suggested, that is nothing more than a watered down version of what Bernie put forward in 2016.

I also have to say that any one who has ever been a member of the Republican party should never be trusted. Warren was a registered republican until 1996. To support one of the most racist, anti working class parties until you’re in your 40s is bad enough, but what is worse is Warren’s justification for being a Republican.

Warren says while she was registered with the GOP that she was not “politically active” and many who support her say, “yes she was a republican but that was when she was young!” She was in her forties in 1996!

I have even heard some people say that Bernie is a nice alternative to the “old white men” running for the presidency. I would like to remind these people that Warren is 70 years old!

All in all, I do not trust Warren, which hurts because I remember the days of Occupy when she seemed to be on our side. But I am not convinced she is consistent and I think she will sell us out faster than Obama did. Obama is similar to Warren in many ways. Palatable to progressives and moderate centrists alike and with a growing base. But much like how Obama failed to mobilize his base out of a need to be “everyone’s president” so do I also see Warren following the same path.

Warren is not the sensible candidate, she is the watered down version of Bernie. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I hate it when a bar tender waters down a perfectly good drink. I’ll take a shot of Bernie, pure and straight, because that is what we need.

Is Liz Warren creating a campaign juggernaut? No, she is a flavor of the month who might sneak in a victory here and there, but even if she wins the nomination and defeats Trump you will see no activation of this base she built. We will get 4 more years of uninspired, pathetic attempts to regulate a class that already controls the regulations.

We don’t need regulated capitalism, we need to strip away the powers of capital. No candidate can bring us anything close to this but Bernie.

Like this:

It’s all well and good to say, “Smash the system!” I support and agree with that statement whole heartedly.

However if we are not offering a genuine alternative to thestatus quoand the systems we are attackingthenLeftists are screwing over ourselves by weakening our argument and, more importantly, we are screwing over the people we are trying to organize and liberate.

It is the staple of conservatives and reactionariestry toargue with us. I have lost count of how many times I have heard, “Well if you hate capitalism so much, what are you saying should replace it?” In all honesty Leftists are not obligated respond to this. Leftists are not obligated appease this sense of entitlement. We do not need to explain every point about every thing they believe, especially any Leftist of a marginalized group.

However when organizing if we are not offering the masses the clear alternative to the systems we rail against then we are doing a disservice to the capabilities of building momentum and we are weakening our foundation for our movement.

To put it bluntly, it is an insult to the victims of racism, patriarchy, and capitalism to say “smash the system” and not make it clear that there is an alternative to organize for.

It is the calling card of the “lifestyle anarchist” to say smash the system for the sake of saying smash the system. Do not mistake me, this is not an attack on anarchism nor any other form of Leftist theory. What I am saying is that when we say “smash the system” the alternatives we are offeringmust bemade clear so that theunengagedwill want to become engaged.

It is all well and good to say “smash the system” but if you are not making it clear that you are offering an alternative, whether that alternative is anarchism,Marxism, or social democracy, you are insulting the very people you are trying to liberate. You are not giving the victims of the system what they need. You are simply validating your own need to decry thestatus quowhen you offer revolution for the sake of revolution. Which is all fine and dandy until the system is actually smashed and then there is nothing in place to help lift and protect the disabled or the otherwisemarginalized. The current system does not do that at all, yet if we do not make it clear we are offering a structure that does protect the unprotected then we have lost.

It’s all well and good to say “smash the system” It is not all well and good to ignore the implications of what comes after the fact. It is not all well and good to put your own need to feel validated as a revolutionary ahead of theactualneeds that go into a revolution.

Smash the system, and make it clear that when itis smashedthere is something to organize, and hope, for.